Quote:
On 2002-05-25 09:35, informant wrote:
Two remarks:
1. The problem is that nothing can be proven "absolutely".
2. If the Bible is right (when taken literally), then Geocentrism, whatever you mean by it, is correct.
However, if geocentrism is correct that doesn't mean that the Bible is right.
This is a basic logical fallacy (I forget the Latin name for it).
|
I think it's the error of the affirmed consequent- arguing in the form if A then B; B, therefore A.
The trouble with this argument is that if B can have an antecedent other than A, B being true doesn't prove A.
Being a troubleshooter by trade, I have to work backwards from effect to cause all the time. The only reasoning that works is in the form of if A then B; B, therefore A is possible but not proved; how can I test A directly?
or if A then B AND C, if D then B AND E, if F then B AND G; only B and C are true, therefore D and F are not true; A remains, therefore I should find a way to test A and not waste time on D or F.
IOW, a variation on the affirmed consequent can be a useful way of eliminating antecedents as impossible, but not of proving them true.